Saturday, December 31, 2011

The surrender is complete now. The Hindureports that the Obama administration has turned to Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s leading jurist, to mediate secret negotiations between the United States and the Taliban.

I wrote about Qaradawi at length in The Grand Jihad and, here at NRO, have regularly catalogued his activities (see, e.g., here, here, here, here, and here; see also Andrew Bostom’s “Qaradawi’s Odious Vision”). For those who may be unfamiliar with him, he is the most influential Sunni Islamist in the world, thanks to such ventures as his al-Jazeera TV program (Sharia and Life) and website (IslamOnline.net). In 2003, he issued a fatwa calling for the killing of American troops in Iraq. As he put it,

Those killed fighting the American forces are martyrs given their good intentions since they consider these invading troops an enemy within their territories but without their will. . . . Although they are seen by some as being wrong, those defending against attempts to control Islamic countries have the intention of jihad and bear a spirit of the defense of their homeland.

Qaradawi urges that Islam must dominate the world, under a global caliphate governed by sharia. He maintains that Islam “will conquer Europe [and] will conquer America.” He sometimes qualifies that the conquering will be done “not through the sword but throughda’wa,” but the qualification is a feint.

Da’wa sounds harmless — it refers to missionary work to spread Islam. Islam, however, is not like other religions. The idea is not to spread a set of spiritual principles but incrementally to impose a full-scale social system with its own authoritarian legal code, covering all aspects of life and instituting a caste system in which women and non-Muslims are subjugated. Nor is da’wa like other missionary work; it is the use of all available means of pressure — political campaigns, lawfare, infiltration of the media, control of the education system, etc. — to advance (a) the acceptance of Islamic principles and (b) the evisceration of principles (e.g., free speech, economic liberty) that undergird competitors, in particular, Western civilization. Moreover, the claim that da’wa is non-violent is frivolous. Much of the mission ofda’wa is to rationalize terrorism as divinely mandated self-defense.

Thus does Sheikh Qaradawi champion Hamas, mass-murder attacks, and suicide bombings. “They are not suicide operations,” he brays. “These are heroic martyrdom operations.” Indeed, he elaborates, “The martyr operations is [sic] the greatest of all sorts of jihad in the cause of Allah.”

Thus does Qaradawi urge the destruction of Israel, rebuking clerics who dare counsel against killing civilians. “I am astonished,” he inveighs, “that some sheikhs deliver fatwas that betray the mujahideen, instead of supporting them and urging them to sacrifice and martyrdom.” As the Investigative Project on Terrorism recounts, when the imam of Mecca’s Grand Mosque issued guidance against the killing of civilians, Qaradawi upbraided him: “It is unfortunate to hear that the grand imam has said it was not permissible to kill civilians in any country or state, even in Israel.”

Not surprisingly, then, the sheikh is also wont to invoke what the West refuses to acknowledge: the Jew-hatred that is endemic in Islam because it is rooted in scripture — not in modern grievances that could be satisfied if only the West changed its policies and Israel had the good grace to disappear. As Qaradawi puts it, echoing the charter of Hamas (the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch):

This is what is told in the Hadith of Ibn-Omar and the Hadith of Abu-Hurairah: “You shall continue to fight the Jews and they will fight you, until the Muslims will kill them. And the Jew will hide behind the stone and the tree, and the stone and the tree will say: ‘Oh servant of Allah, Oh Muslim, this is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him!’ The resurrection will not come before this happens.” This is a text from the good omens in which we believe.

Qaradawi uses his al-Jazeera platform to preach this message to the Muslim masses. As the Middle East Media Research Institute and Robert Spencer document, in one memorable Friday “sermon” broadcast in 2009, he prayed that Allah would kill all Jews: “Oh Allah, take this oppressive, Jewish, Zionist band of people. Oh Allah, do not spare a single one of them. Oh Allah, count their numbers and kill them, down to the very last one.” He added that throughout history, Allah had imposed upon Jews “people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Adolph Hitler.”

After thousands of young Americans have laid down their lives to protect the United States from jihadist terror, President Obama apparently seeks to end the war by asking Qaradawi, a jihad-stoking enemy of the United States, to help him strike a deal that will install our Taliban enemies as part of the sharia state we have been building in Afghanistan. If the Hindu report is accurate, the price tag will include the release of Taliban prisoners from Gitmo — an element of the deal Reuters has also reported. The administration will also agree to the lifting of U.N. sanctions against the Taliban, and recognition of the Taliban as a legitimate political party (yes, just like the Muslim Brotherhood!). In return, the Taliban will pretend to forswear violence, to sever ties with al-Qaeda, and to cooperate with the rival Karzai regime.

Friday, December 30, 2011

Ann Barnhardt’s excellent contribution to awareness of Islam as practiced in the less advanced parts of the world, and in Sharia-compliant enclaves in Europe.

“Islam is Not a Religion. Islam is a Political System.”
“Mohammad created Islam to enrich Mohammad, raise an army, and facilitate and legalize Mohammad’s sexual perversions” (note the part about consummation of a marriage to a 9 year old girl)
“Sharia law is sedition”

Barnhardt adds that Hitler tried to morph Nazism into a religion as a substitute for religion, and throws in the torchlight rallies at Nuremberg. All that are missing are the torches and the swastikas. Barnhardt goes on to compare militant Muslims in the U.S. to the German-American Bund.

Part 2 (We do not however agree with the exclusion of loyal Muslims from our Armed Forces.) The video defines militant Islamic sexuality as “pure evil,” an observation with which we agree. Some really good information at 5:40 or so. Her observation about one man’s testimony being worth that of two women is accurate. The following is 2.282?>straight from the Koran.

[2.282] O you who believe! when you deal with each other in contracting a debt for a fixed time, then write it down; and let a scribe write it down between you with fairness; and the scribe should not refuse to write as Allah has taught him, so he should write; and let him who owes the debt dictate, and he should be careful of (his duty to) Allah, his Lord, and not diminish anything from it; but if he who owes the debt is unsound in understanding, or weak, or (if) he is not able to dictate himself, let his guardian dictate with fairness; and call in to witness from among your men two witnesses; but if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses, so that if one of the two errs, the second of the two may remind the other; and the witnesses should not refuse when they are summoned; and be not averse to writing it (whether it is) small or large, with the time of its falling due; this is more equitable in the sight of Allah and assures greater accuracy in testimony, and the nearest (way) that you may not entertain doubts (afterwards), except when it is ready merchandise which you give and take among yourselves from hand to hand, then there is no blame on you in not writing it down; and have witnesses when you barter with one another, and let no harm be done to the scribe or to the witness; and if you do (it) then surely it will be a transgression in you, and be careful of (your duty) to Allah, Allah teaches you, and Allah knows all things.

At about 12:00, the issue of infertility in Afghan women is studied. The women were not getting pregnant because the men had learned (from their own experience at being sodomized) the wrong way to have sex. Female genital mutilation also is discussed.

Part 3 (warning, graphic content re: female genital mutilation). At 8:20 or so, she describes how one imam proclaimed that Allah was busy on Thursday nights and could not see what militant Muslims were doing (NAMBLA or equivalent). “Minor attracted persons” = kiddie diddlers (= many United Nations personnel).

Part 4 5:30 discusses incest and its consequences, including low intelligence. At about 7:30, Ayatollah Khomeini condones sex with livestock, although the animal must then be killed. At about 10:00, an imam says death does not alter a marriage contract so a man can have sex with his freshly deceased wife.

Thursday, December 29, 2011

This time of year Christians celebrate the birth of our savior at Christ Mass. It’s no secret that Christmas is under massive assault. This year the U.S. military apologized for promoting a Christian-based charity and relief program providing holiday gifts to poor children. As if that wasn’t enough, military hospitals banned bibles, Christian symbols, and prayer. At the same time Muslims are encouraged to wear headdress and Muslim symbols on their uniform.

Across the country, Christmas lights, Christmas trees, and menorahs are banned in public areas, and even congressmen were told they are forbidden from saying “Merry Christmas” – although who has the authority to tell congress what they can and cannot say is beyond me.

Supposed atheists, such as the Freedom from Religion Foundation, take great pride in their success, forcing the removal of all things “Christ” – especially during the Christian holiday. In many places traditional Christmas icons have been replaced with signs declaring that Jesus was a myth, and that Christmas is actually a holiday created to worship the god Mithra, Sol Invictus, Isis, and other pagan deities. However, as I show in Volume 2 of Totalitarianism, (yet to be released) these are simply different names for the same god, and are actually a mirror image of Jesus Christ.

Empirical Science and Christianity

Engineers are scientists who apply scientific principles to practical application. As such we look for verifiable empirical evidence to support our positions. While Americans are told that science and Christianity are incompatible, the source of all empirical science comes from the Bible: “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

In the case of Jesus Christ, empiricists need to document that He actually existed, that He was the one and only messiah, that He was the one and only messiah, that He was crucified and died on the cross, and that He arose from the dead. Because of the length of this article, however, the crucifixion and resurrection will be addressed at Easter (and in Volume 2).

As it turns out, the evidence that supports these events is much better documented than what passes for history in academia. For example, the only evidence that Julius Caesar first crossed the English Channel in 55 BC, is in a document written by Caesar himself, and was designed to justify his military career; while the earliest known biographies of Alexander were written by the Roman historians Arrian (AD 86 – 146) and Plutarch (AD 46 – 120), more than four hundred years after Alexander’s death; but this doesn’t stop grade schools and universities from including Caesar’s conquests, or asserting that Alexander existed – nor should it. The difference is, that the quality and quantity of evidence supporting the Christian narrative, is far superior.

According to the 8th-century BC prophet Isaiah, the test of prophecy is designed to cause the, “omens of boasters to fail, and to make fools out of the diviners, while, confirming the word of his servant, and performing the purpose of His messengers” (Isaiah 44:25-26). Isaiah offered evidence that Yahweh could meet His own challenge, by presenting notable prophecies that could be verified later in history. The ability to make predictions and then test if those predictions come true is also at the heart of empirical science. An example would be when Isaac Newton predicted a solar eclipse in London, which then happened precisely as Newton said it would. This was the first time in history that anyone had accurately made such a prediction about the movements of celestial bodies. Yes, there are recorded instances of eclipses before Newton, but there is no evidence that they were predicted before the event occurred. The difference between Isaiah and Newton was that Isaiah made his prediction without scientific tools, receiving them as messages. This means that if his predictions come true, he must have been in contact with knowledge that resides outside of this temporal universe, as it otherwise violates the principle of causality.

The Gospels of the Christian New Testament are the most heavily researched and supported documents in the history of the human race, with the possible exception of the Torah. They provide testimony, or gospels, from the perspective of the apostles: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The New Testament also provides a collection of formal letters, called the epistles, from the apostles: Paul, Peter, and John, as well as from, Jude and James. It is believed that the crucifixion occurred in AD 30, and that Saint Paul’s conversion occurred in AD 32. Paul was later brought to Damascus where he met with a Christian named Ananias, and some of the apostles for the first time. Paul’s first meeting with the apostles in Jerusalem was around AD 35, after which he began to organize the early Church.

The oldest remaining manuscript is the Gospel of John, dating to between AD 98 and 138. It was discovered along side the Nile in 1920, and translated in 1934, by C. H. Roberts of Saint John’s college in Oxford. The oldest complete Greek copies of the New Testament are the Codex Vaticanus, named for its location in the Vatican, and the Codex Sinaiticus, both of which date to AD 350. Altogether there are 5,664 known copies in Greek, and about 24,000 manuscripts in total; and they are all in basic agreement, despite the lack of a printing press. Taken together, the documents in the New Testament bear witness to the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ from the perspective of nine independent witnesses, making it better documented than any other ancient history book in existence.

December 25th

We don’t actually know the exact date of Jesus’ birth, but there are some amazing clues. Scripture talks about shepherds who tended their sheep grazing in the fields, and the shepherds themselves slept out in the open. To this day, shepherds graze their sheep in green pastures from early spring through early fall; but by October the sheep are usually in pins and are fed from stores. So it is unlikely that the shepherds would have been in the fields in December.

Scriptures also say that Caesar Augustus had just issued a decree that the Roman Empire was to undergo a census, where the head of each house was required to return to their place of birth. Scholars often point out that such surveys usually consisted of counting Roman citizens where they lived, and did not require them to travel. It is also pointed out that such a decree would have been impossible to comply with in the dead of winter; making it unlikely such an undertaking was decreed in December.

Another clue is found in the book of Luke 1:5 which says, “In the time of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron.” Zechariah was married to Mary’s cousin Elizabeth, and was serving in the temple when an Angle visited him and told him that his wife was going to give birth to John the Baptist. The first chapter then goes on to say that when Zechariah returned home after his work at the Temple, his wife Elizabeth conceived but kept the pregnancy a secret for five months (Luke 1:24). In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, an Angel visited Mary, telling her she was pregnant with the Christ Child (Luke 1:26). Upon hearing this news, Mary went to visit Elizabeth and entered Zechariah’s home. This means that if we know when Zechariah finished his work at the Temple, and add six months, we should know when Mary conceived.

Priestly duties were divided into 24 courses, and in 1 Chronicles 24:10 we learn that Zechariah was serving at the Temple on the eighth course of Abijah, counting from the first week on the Jewish calendar. We also know that the Jewish New Year started fifteen days before Passover, and was practiced sometime in March or April. This means that Zechariah finished his service eight weeks later, meaning John was conceived sometime in June. This means that Mary would have conceived six months later in December, around the fest of Hanukkah. This would place the birth of Jesus in late September or early October. This would support the biblical accounts of shepherds in the field and the Roman census.

However, there is another interpretation. Priests served two courses a year, so what if Zechariah was serving his second course of the year? This would put his second course at week 32 of the New Year, meaning that Zechariah was serving in the Temple in October. This would mean that Jesus would have been conceived in March/April (around Passover) and delivered in Late December or early January (around Hanukkah). This interpretation supports a birth date, on or around, December 25th. It has also been pointed out that the Census may not have been ordered for the entire empire, but for Jews only. The weather would not have been an impediment, and the act of returning to one’s birthplace would conform to Jewish tradition.

The earliest Western Christians celebrated the birth of Christ on December 25th birth date, while Eastern Christians have celebrated on January 7th. In AD 325, Emperor Constantine set the official date as December 25th, but there are two conflicting explanations. One is that the Christian leaders at that time demanded that he do so, and the other is that he set the date to coincide with the winter solstice and pagan festivals. However, the earliest known document making the pagan claim was written in the twelfth century, when the Syriac Orthodox Bishop, Dionysius Bar-Salabi, mentioned this possibility in his notes. Other Church leaders largely rejected his suggestion of a planned connection of the birth date with paganism. However, yet another piece of evidence is that Constantine minted coins with Christian Symbols on one side and pagan symbols on the other, possibly as a means of satisfying both religions.

It is asserted that the December 25th date is actually meant to celebrate pagan gods; but there are problems with this assertion as well. For one thing, the Roman calendar was often changed to meet the needs of each emperor and his cult. As a result, we don’t actually know if the Romans celebrated Mythra’s birth on the 25th of December, anymore than we know Jesus was born on that date. In another explanation, it was common in ancient times for Hebrews and Pagans to build on top of their opponent’s temples and usurping their holidays as a way of destroying the competition.

While the actual date of Jesus’ birth is hotly debated, it must be pointed out that the December 25th date is a consistently important date to Hebrews and Christians. In 165 BC, after the Mcabian Revolt, the Temple was liberated on what we would now call the 25th of December. In remembrance, the Hebrews started the Feast of Dedication, what we now call Hanukkah (John 10:22 – 33). Then came the Festival of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was in the temple courts walking in Solomon’s Colonnade. The Jews who were there gathered around him, saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.”

Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”

Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

This took place on what again on our calendar would be December 25th, so on December 25th, Jesus declared he was the True Light, God with us.

Extra Biblical Evidence

Outside of the New Testament, the historian Josephus independently confirms the existence of Jesus, when he describes the execution of James, by the Roman governor Festus. Josephus says, “He [Festus] convened a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned.”

In a more controversial document called the Testimonium Flavianum, Josephus says, “About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accepted the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.”

There are rabbinic passages in the Talmud that mention Jesus, calling him a false messiah who practiced magic, and who was justly condemned to death. They also introduce rumors that Jesus was actually the son of a Roman soldier, who got Mary pregnant in an adulterous relationship. The thing is, this took place in a Hellenistic world where adulterous relationships and magicians were common; so rabbinic writers spent a lot of energy vilifying someone whom they would have otherwise ignored, if indeed he had been of no importance.

Evidence from outside the bible tells us a lot about the biography of Christ. From these sources we know that Jesus was a Jewish Teacher, and there were many people who believed he had performed healings and other miracles. His followers believed he was the Messiah, while the temple leaders said He was not. Jesus was then condemned and crucified under Pontius Pilate, in the reign of emperor Tiberius. Despite the gruesome death of Jesus, his followers believed that he was still alive, and their belief spread beyond Palestine, so that there were many Christians in Rome by AD 64. Today, despite two thousand years of extreme persecution, there are billions of people worldwide, who worship Jesus as God.

The evidence that Jesus existed, and exercised a tremendous influence, is beyond question; but that doesn’t stop people from questioning it. In 1970, John Marco Allegro (1933 – 1988) wrote a book charging that the Christian movement emerged from a fertility cult, where members consumed hallucinogenic mushrooms. Although he provides no empirical evidence to support such a position, the book was a best seller.

Was Jesus the one and only Messiah?

The next important question is: was Jesus the one and only Messiah, as foretold in scripture? The ancient Hebrew texts abound with prophecy making predictions hundreds, and even thousands of years before Jesus was born. Deuteronomy talked about a prophet greater than Mosses, who would come and whom we should listen to. The book of Psalms told of His betrayal, His accusation by false witness, and His manner of death, which included pierced hands and feet, although crucifixion had not been invented yet. Written around 725 BC, Isaiah 53 gave a fairly detailed description of Christ and his ordeal. In summary, Isaiah said that Christ would be despised and rejected by men, as well as being a man of sorrows who was familiar with suffering. He would take up our infirmities and carry our sorrows, yet He would be considered stricken by God. He would be pierced for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace would be upon Him, and His wounds would heal us. Like sheep we would have all gone astray, each of us turning to his own way, and the Lord would lay upon Him the iniquity of us all. He would be oppressed and afflicted, yet not open His mouth as He was led like a lamb to the slaughter. He would be assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in His death, although He had done no violence, nor was any deceit in His mouth. He would bare the sins of many, and make intercession (a prayer offered for someone else) for their transgressors.

Peter Stoner (1888 – 1980) was the chairman of the Department of Mathematics and Astronomy at Pasadena City College. In a research project that included the help of some 600 or so university students, Professor Stoner identified 456 identifying characteristics, which prophets had used to predict the coming of the Messiah. The result of this study showed that the likelihood that any one person could meet only 48 of these characteristics was only 1 in 1 X 10157, a number that for all practical purposes is zero. Yet despite the odds, Jesus of Nazareth met all 456 characteristics, a statistical impossibility. So it is safe to say that Jesus was the one and the only Messiah.

Why is Christianity under Massive Assault?

Herbert Marcuse (1898 – 1979) was a prominent psychologist at the Institute for Social Research, an adjunct to the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow. Often called the father of the new left, Marcuse and his fellow Marxists set about to destroy Western Civilization, and its Christian faith. To do this they instituted a method we now call Political Correctness and Multiculturalism – collectively called Critical Theory or Neo-Marxism.

At the University of Chicago, Marcuse wrote a book called Repressive Tolerance (1965) where he said, “The objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed.” This is not an original position, as Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 – 1900) said the same thing – calling it “Transvauluation.” Marcuse said that the right needed to be tolerant of the left, while expecting the left to represent the right as repressive, ignorant, or wrong. Marcuse said that revolution and violence against the right was justified, citing the Russian, Chinese, and Cuban revolutions. He provided explicit justification for denying conservatives the right to equal time, on the grounds that “a balanced intellectual platform furthered the conservative agenda all by itself.” In other words, he knew socialism would loose in a contest of free ideas.

Professor Niels Lemche (b. 1945) from the University of Copenhagen applied Critical Theory to the Hebrew/Christian faith. He claimed that not only was there no empirical evidence to support such a belief, the entire Hebrew/Christian history was a fraud. His argument is that anyone with a Christian or Hebrew background cannot be objective about history, because his or her belief in God renders rational thought impossible. He concluded, “… that historical-critical scholarship is based on a false methodology and leads to false conclusions. This simply means that we can disregard 200 years of biblical scholarship and commit it to the dustbin. It is hardly worth the paper on which it is printed.” This assertion that Hebrews and Christians are incapable of rational thought, and therefore incapable of conducting science, is part of the political narrative in use today.

In 1979, the Archaeologist Gabriel Barkley discovered tiny silver scrolls in a tomb in Jerusalem’s Hinnom Valley. These scrolls contain the oldest known texts of the Torah dating to the time of David, thus predating the first Hebrew exile, and the destruction of the first temple. So, how do today’s textbooks handle this artifact and the thousands of other archaeological discoveries? The answer is; they don’t, the evidence is simply criticized, or ignored.

How do we as Conservative Christians respond?

Ideas are best fought with ideas; and when we see one side shrinking from meaningful debate by simply attacking the competition without evidence, we should immediately conclude they have no valid ideas to offer. It should also be remembered that “prevent defense” does not work, and Christian Conservatives need to respond with ideas and forceful arguments that win the argument. This requires a conservative reeducation initiative that corrects the historical fiction perpetrated by the left.

Commentary: Is Tanakh (Old Testament) and B'rit Hadashah (New Testament) true? Dave Hunt's documentary is scripturally accurate in history and today's headlines. The ancient Jewish Prophets of Israel were ignored and reviled for the unimaginable unpleasantness of the prophesies. Israel is central to biblical prophesy and most prophesies regarding Israel have now been fulfilled. What was once "ridiculous notion" is now established history.

Destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem
Enslavement by the Romans
Worldwide disbursement of Jews
Israel left a desolate wasteland
Jews horribly persecuted worldwide ~ for centuries

Jews return to Israel from the 4 corners of the earth
The barren desert blooms for the returned Jews
The Gog Magog alliance against Israel(Occurring now)

Nearly 40 centuries of Jewish history prove biblical prophesy 100% accurate ~ regardless if believed or not. The Bible has validated itself to such a degree that it is "anti-intellectual" to be ignorant of scripture and prophesy.

Biblical prophesy, through current events, indicates the world is in "pre-Messianic Age" like no other time in history. Since biblical prophesy proves 100% accurate, it stands to reason that its admonishments and encouragements are equally accurate.

"I will bless those who bless you (Israel),
and curse those who curse you..." Genesis 12:3

"The rise and fall of nations can be traced to how they treated the Jews." Hal Lindsey

It's time to wake.

Christians: Remember, love for Israel is given to all true Christians by the God of Israel through the Spirit of Yeshua Moschiach (Jesus Christ). If you are grateful for your salvation in Christ, remember what Jesus said,

...salvation (Jesus) is of the Jews. John 4:22

and support Israel. It is truly every Christian's privilege.

"Listen to me, you who pursue righteousness
and who seek the LORD :Look to the rock from which you were cut
and to the quarry from which you were hewn;

look to Abraham, your father,
and to Sarah, who gave you birth.
When I called him he was but one,
and I blessed him and made him many.

The LORD will surely comfort Zion
and will look with compassion on all her ruins;
he will make her deserts like Eden,
her wastelands like the garden of the LORD.
Joy and gladness will be found in her,
thanksgiving and the sound of singing.
Isaiah 51:1-3

"You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart." Jeremiah 29:13

Secular, Intellectual, non-believing, everyone else: The blessed hope is Yeshua Moschiach (Jesus Christ). Regardless one believes or not, the Bible proves correct like NO OTHER religious writing or philosophy in the history of the world. Even without Bible belief, in studying the secular history of Israel, today's events become transparent. The falsehood based reasons for anti-Israel hostilities evaporate in face of truth. Be on the side of right and fair dealing. Do not lend your hand to injustice - support Israel.

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Eighteen years have passed since the signing of the Oslo accords, and it seems justifiable to reach the conclusion that there will be no final-status agreement that will solve the Arab Israeli conflict in the foreseeable future.

The recent reconciliation between the Palestinian Authority andHamas – including the announcement that Hamas will join the PLO - is further evidence that Mahmoud Abbas was never sincere in pursuing a peace agreement with Israel.

Now that the chimera of a “peace process” has been exposed, the time has come to finally face the truth.

The Palestinian leadership has deceived Israel and the international community by speaking the language of “peace” to Western English-speaking audiences, while continually preaching hate and war to their own people in Arabic.

Duplicity and deceit have long concealed the true intentions of the Palestinian Authority, but its most recent actions and rhetoric have definitively revealed that it is not truly interested in peace and reconciliation with the Jewish state.

'Intelligent resistance'

A recent example of Palestinian deception is the manner in which the PA officially explains its refusal to negotiate with Israel.

The decision not to negotiate has been presented as a result of the Israeli insistence on building in the settlements while, in reality, the deadlock is the result of a revised policy that the PA adopted more than two years ago.

This revised policy was discussed by the Palestine Strategy Group and formed the basis for the 13th program of the Palestinian Authority published in 2009.

The program calls for "intelligent resistance" – meaning law fare, boycott campaigns and propaganda – as a means of continuing the struggle against Israel.

While terror has always been the main Palestinian weapon against Israel, under Abbas’ leadership the strategy changed, and political warfare has proven to be more successful in winning over the international community to the Palestinian cause.

But there is more. Other factors, which were not openly discussed by the Palestinians, contributed significantly to the failure of the peace process.

The absence of truth in Palestinian politics and society is one of those factors. Jihad or Ribat (a religious war for Allah), and Islamic anti-Semitism (including incitement against Jews and Israel) are the others.

Confusing the world

Ever since the establishment of the Palestinian Authority in 1994, deception has been a tactic to confuse Israel and the rest of the world.

Conflicting reports about the meaning of Hamas’ membership in the PLO issued recently by Fatah and Hamas leaders are the latest example of this tactic of deception, which is called al-Taqiyya and is primary based on the Koran.

According to the authoritative Arab text, Al-Taqiyya Fi Al-Islam, “Taqiyyah (deception) is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it…Taqiyyah is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.”

Muhammad first practiced Taqiyyah during the Battle of the Trench (627AD,) which pitted his army against several non-Muslim tribes known as “the Confederates.”

Arafat referred repeatedly to the use of Taqiyyah by Muhammad when he spoke about the Oslo accords to Islamic audiences.

'We will drive them out'

Fatah leader, Abbas Zaki, has repeatedly revealed the duplicity of the PA leaders.

On April 9th 2008 he told NBN TV the following: “The PLO has not changed its platform even one iota…. The PLO proceeds through phases….. Allah willing we will drive them out of all of Palestine.

The same Zaki said the following this year on Lebanon TV: “When we say that the settlement should be based upon these (1967) borders, President (Abbas) understands, we understand, and everybody knows that the greater goal cannot be accomplished in one go. If Israel withdraws from Jerusalem, evacuates the 650,000 settlers and dismantles the wall – what will become of Israel? It will come to an end."

He then said: "It is not acceptable policy to say that we want to wipe Israel out. Don’t say these things to the world, keep it to yourself."

Mahmoud Abbas is less outspoken but is no less involved in deceiving the international community. Take for example an interview with European reporters about the unity agreement with Hamas two weeks ago, in which he said the following:

"We set the agreement's pillars, and Hamas agreed with us that resistance will be popular and adopt peaceful ways, rather than military resistance.” Peaceful resistance?

Well, when Hamas celebrated its 23th anniversary in Gaza the same week, Hamas PM Haniyeh called upon the Muslim Brotherhood to start a war to liberate Jerusalem He also said the following:

“We affirm that armed resistance is our strategic option and the only way to liberate our land, from the (Mediterranean) sea to the River (Jordan.) God willing, Hamas will lead the people… to the uprising until we liberate Palestine, all of Palestine”.

Water issues

Deception and incitement have also been the hallmark of the way Palestinians inform the world about the day-to-day situation in the West Bank and in Gaza.

This summer our organization, Missing Peace, revealed that the PA continually lies about water issues in the West Bank in order to advance the narrative of Israeli repression and Palestinian victimhood.

Additionally, the PA has actually failed to implement approved water projects and ignored undeniable evidence of Palestinian water theft.

Reports by individual Palestinian citizens or Palestinian NGOs often contain similar false claims.

Meanwhile, Palestinian Media Watch just published a book titled Deception, which documents the hate, incitement and promotion of violence by PA officials and media.

The book also demonstrates how the Palestinian public, and especially children, are brainwashed into believing the most outrageous lies about Palestinian history, Israel and the Jews.

The book also recounts a meeting between Mahmoud Abbas and president Obama in the White House on June 9, 2010. During that meeting Abbas said:

“And I say in front of you, Mr. President, that we have nothing to do with incitement against Israel, and we’re not doing that.”

Until now, large parts of the international community have ignored the evidence about the Palestinian deception and insist that the conflict is about territorial claims. Yet it is not. This conflict is about the existence of a Jewish state in the Dar al-Islam (territory of Islam).

The EU even raised its contribution to the PA by €100 million for 2012 and keeps admonishing Israel for building activities in the West Bank and Jerusalem.

If foreign interlocutors like the EU are serious about ending the conflict they should first insist that the PA end incitement and confront the clear pattern of deception by Palestinian leaders.

Yochanan Visser is the Director of Missing Peace Middle East News and writer of 'Israel indicted' a recently published book about the cognitive war against Israel (Dutch language) www.missingpeace.eu

Sharon Shaked, Arab affairs research at Missing Peace, holds a BA in Islam and Mideast studies from Hebrew University

It’s no longer news that President Obama’s vaunted outreach to Islam has been a bust. Numerous polls over the past three years have shown that after a brief flurry of enthusiasm, regard for the United States among the world’s Muslims has declined precipitously. In some key countries, dislike for America is even lower than it was at the end of the administration of George W. Bush, whom liberal critics deemed culturally illiterate.

The State Department recently illustrated why reaching out has been such a failure. In mid-December, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton participated in a three-day international conference called the Istanbul Process regarding the implementation ofUnited Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) Resolution 16/18, adopted in March. The resolution ostensibly seeks to combat religious intolerance and was a U.S.-sponsored alternative to language pushed by theOrganization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) that would have imposed global blasphemy laws against critics of Islam. Resolution 16/18 calls on states to “foster religious freedom and pluralism” and - in typical Obama administration apologetic style - stop religious profiling, which purportedly is a widespread American vice.

In her keynote speech at the conference, Mrs. Clinton noted a study by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life that found “70 percent of the world’s population lives in countries with a high number of restrictions on religious freedom.” What she left out was that the 2009 Pew report “Global Restrictions on Religion” found that most states that had “high” or “very high” religious restrictions were countries with Muslim majorities. The research also revealed, “On average, restrictions are highest in the Middle East-North Africa, where the median score for the 20 countries (4.9) is considerably higher than for the 35 countries in the Americas (1.0), the region with the lowest median score.” In other words, whatever problems of religious intolerance UNHRC Resolution 16/18 seeks to address, they are endemic among Muslims, not in the pluralistic West.

Mrs. Clinton also bemoaned the prevalence of religious- and culturally based discrimination against women, which is characteristic of many Muslim countries. Likewise, homosexual conduct is a capital offense in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran and Afghanistan and is subject to harsh punishment in most of the Middle East, which runs counter to Mr. Obama’s Dec. 6 order for the U.S. government to fight for homosexual “rights” abroad.

Despite all this, White House pandering to Islam is nonstop. Last week, the Defense Department approved a policy allowing those in JROTC to wear Islamic headscarves (hijabs) during training and formations. This policy is harmful for unit cohesion because introducing special privileges disrupts the spirit of shared sacrifice and responsibility that should be inculcated in cadets. It also raises important First Amendment establishment clause issues because government is acting to benefit a single group solely on the basis of religion. It’s not clear which will budge when Mr. Obama’s commitments to liberalism and groveling to Islam are at odds.

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

No one has ever called him Cromwell the Swede. Or, Oliver of Mongolia.

No one has ever tried to claim that Alexander the Great was from Bolivia.

It would be absurd to allege that Cleopatra was Canadian.

So why are quite a few people—with a straight face—calling Jesus a Palestinian?

Of course, I do not mean that I’m comparing Cromwell or any of these other figures from history with the Son of God. Still, I am attempting to show the nuttiness of changing someone’s ethnic background, for some odd agenda.

That is what is going on with Jesus Christ. The Jesus of the Bible was thoroughly a Jew, born to Jewish parents in Bethlehem. They raised him in Nazareth. They went to the Temple in Jerusalem. Et cetera.

One of the most diabolical lies being circulated today is that “Jesus was a Palestinian.”

You know what Palestinians are, of course, at least thanks recently to Newt Gingrich. When answering a reporter’s question he simply said that there has never been a sovereign state of Palestine. This is an historical fact and is akin to saying Plano, Texas, is not a state in the Union.

Yet a growing number of folks are peddling the Jesus was a Palestinian whopper. Philip Yancey was doing it in the ‘90s. Christianity Today let him get away with it because the editorial board shares the same worldview.

Yasser Arafat said it, as does his Holocaust-denying successor, Mahmoud Abbas. Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad said recently from Bethlehem that “"Christmas is an opportunity to celebrate the Palestinian identity of Jesus Christ," a clever lie from one who understands that many in the West are both gullible and uninformed.

In fact, Arafat used to tell people that Jesus was the first Palestinian martyr. This is not only a repulsive lie, but it is an attempt to distort true religion and history. Remember, Arafat used to tell America diplomats and presidents that the Temple never stood in Jerusalem.

The truly disturbing thing is that American evangelicals—or those who call themselves evangelicals—are helping perpetuate this lie. Again, Yancey thinks Jesus was a Palestinian rabbi.

Insane.

In the past six months, I have discovered more fully how deep this lie goes. It is quite disturbing and has far-reaching implications.

For many decades, mainline church types have sought to marginalize Israel and Jews, whether through wacky biblical “scholarship” or political maneuvering. Now it is the “evangelicals” who are leading the (false) charge.

I will be writing about this at length in the coming weeks, but I have recently dialogued with key people who are pro Palestinian, in the evangelical world.

Last week, I had a conversation by email with a man who is part of one of these organizations. He was taking Newt Gingrich to task for saying the Palestinians are an invented people (even key PLO leaders have said this).

This man was adamant that Gingrich is wrong; he supplied a detailed rundown of ancient history.

No one in his right mind would deny that the ancient Phoenicians lived in the region, or that the Arabs also come from the seed of Abraham. The key thing there is, who was the child of the promise? Scripture is crystal-clear that it was Isaac.

What is almost baffling to me is why serious people would claim that there was once a state of Palestine, or that the Palestinian Arabs are not in fact simply part of the pan-Arab nation. This is elementary. Yet proponents of the so-called Palestinian narrative are hell-bent on demanding that the Jews have hijacked a great, ancient, and thriving civilization called Palestine.

I am not arguing that there is an ethnic group that is a cousin of the Jews in the region, or even that there might one day exist a state of Palestine. I wouldn’t like it, but I wouldn’t deny reality.

Those who push the Palestinian narrative are rejecting reality. Such is the dislike of Jews and the Hebrew nature of the Bible that these people peddle outright falsehoods.

I even heard John MacArthur the other day on radio repeatedly refer to the geography of Jesus as “Palestine.” I don’t know why he would do that.

My email correspondent arrogantly appealed to me to get on the “right side of history” and embrace these delusions. His nastiness when discussing Zionism was/is disturbing. He told me that I don’t care about the people of Palestine.

Let me tell you something: if you want to stand up for Israel in the coming months and years, you’d better have your big-boy pants on. Rather, you’d better have the full armor of God. Because you are going to encounter people who will deny reality and call you crazy in the process. We are living, my friends, in a time when inversion of the truth is normal and pervasive.

This Christmas, I am celebrating with appreciation the fact that a Jewish savior entered the world 2,000 years ago and grew up in Israel. He is a Jew now, and will one day reign from Jerusalem, the city of His forefathers. He was born in Bethlehem, to a Jewish carpenter and his Jewish wife.

He offered Himself as the only acceptable sacrifice, on a Roman cross.

His heritage, time on Earth, and ministry are rooted in reality and real history.

The question is, do enough people care?

Oliver Cromwell lived in relative obscurity for much of his life, eventually emerging as an engine of religious liberty in England. He is one of the famous figures of history, and much has been written about the one-time farmer, born in the 16th century. English through-and-through.

Monday, December 26, 2011

When we declare Jihad against Germany, for instance, it is declared against the German state, for refusing to allow Islam to spread to the people of Germany. We give them a choice: Either to convert to Islam, or to pay the jizyaand submit to the laws of Islam.

Otherwise, war is the third choice.

All well and good; the Sheikh is merely quoting standard jihadi doctrine.

But he did say something that revealed how utterly deluded he is, how he cannot comprehend the full significance of what he himself is preaching. After agreeing that there is a “clash of civilizations” between the West and Islam, he said:

If not for Jihad, Islam would not have reached us and all the other places. Within a quarter of a century, Islam reached most of the ancient world by means of Jihad. The common people want Islam. Anyone who doesn’t can stick to his own religion. Here in the Levant, most of our forefathers were not Muslims, but they converted to Islam because of its goodness and justice.

So, after telling us that Islam does teach jihad—that is, offensive war to spread Islamic hegemony; after telling us that “Islam reached most of the ancient world by means of jihad”; after telling us that those who do not wish to convert to Islam must pay jizya—which, as he well knows, involves much more than merely paying a tax, involves being a second-class dhimmi, whose worth is at best half that of a Muslim (he even alluded to this when he said “pay the jizyaand submit to the laws of Islam”—after all this straightforward and honest talk, he resorts to fantasy by adding

The common people want Islam. Anyone who doesn’t can stick to his own religion. Here in the Levant, most of our forefathers were not Muslims[most were Christian during Islam’s invasion], but they converted to Islam because of its goodness and justice.

Really, now? Does it not occur to the Sheikh that his ancestors, when confronted by Islamic jihad and forced to decide between either joining the “winning team” or becoming second-class dhimmis, treated contemptuously, abused, and persecuted—as they still are to this very day—does it not occur to him that maybe that’s why many of his ancestors converted, and not because of Islam’s “goodness and justice”?

Does it not occur to him that Islam’s own apostasy law—Islam being the only religion that ensures people remain in its fold by threatening to kill them should they wish to convert to another religion—is a clear substitute for natural appeal?

Of course, Sheikh Quddum’s contradictions are but the latest example of how Muslim sheikhs totally distort history to justify jihad. They have no problem being honest about Islam’s history and doctrines of violence; but they must always frame the jihad as a “good thing” which “liberates” people.

Apparently treating people as second-class citizens if they don’t convert to Islam, and threatening those born into the religion with death if they try to leave it, is proof that “the common people want Islam”—that they “converted to Islam because of its goodness and justice.”

[For more, see this article by Egyptian liberal Khaled Montaser, which exposes the deep set “inferiority complex” infecting the Muslim world regarding the issue of conversion.]

This is the time of the year that the air is filled with everything Christmas. There is something for everyone: gifts for family and friends, prayers at churches, and Christmas music everywhere. It puts me in a contemplative mood, particularly when I hear the delightful Christian refrain, peace on earth, goodwill to men. This is the gift I want. This is my Christmas. When there is peace on earth and all people dispense and receive good will.

Yet, I am saddened to see the world as it is, particularly with what Islam is doing to it, which is the exact opposite of working for peace and extending goodwill to all people.

My contemplation takes me to the genesis of Islam. Something I have come to view as a scourge of humanity, and here are a few of my random thoughts about the founder of Islam: the person who launched a religion that has denied peace to mankind right from the start, the person who advanced a religion that began with war, continues with war, and aims to carry on with bloodletting to the end of time. All this makes me think and shake my head in bewilderment.

Starting with the premise that an all-knowing powerful God is the Creator of this awe-inspiring universe where we humans are an infinitesimally insignificant part of His creation humbles me. Muslims call this creator Allah—a recast of one of 360 idols in the pre-Islamic Idolatry of Mecca—and attribute numerous superhuman qualities to him. It is awe-inspiring to realize that a being of that description may indeed exist.

That leads me to some questions: Why would such an indescribably exalted Creator, with his ascribed boundless wisdom and resources, pick an illiterate Bedouin to become His prophet for then and forever? The man himself, Muhammad, admitted in the Quran to his own illiteracy. Yet, Allah persisted in choosing this man? Was Allah bored with the rest of his universe and playing a joke on us helpless mortals? Or was it a case of Allah not being able to get any reasonably literate man to take the job?

I don’t have an answer to this or a bevy of other questions, and the answers I have seen so far from Muslims are far from satisfactory. I am forced to mark this as one of the enigmas of life and move on to further look into Muhammad, his claims, his life and the way all might come together with Allah’s choreography of our life of drama.

Muslims claim that Muhammad was the most perfect man, the kind of saintly man that each and every one of us should adulate and aspire to follow. On the top of their list is the desire to lead their lives in such a way that would please Allah, if they can.

Muhammad has done that, Muslims claim. And apparently Allah, in His infinite kindness, does not require the rest of us mortals to do things that we are incapable of doing. And Muhammad has brought us the perfect life manual, the Quran, to help us in our quest, we are told.

Besides, a great inducement for me to check Islam out is the promise of eternal life in an indescribably lush sensual paradise of Allah if I make the grade. If I fail, I am told, my forever destination is the dreadful inferno of hell.

I have also checked out those schools of thought that say life starts here and ends here. End of discussion. Well, buying into the idea that I am going to end up as fertilizer in some desolate cemetery is not something I would like to contemplate. So, I kept looking into this Islam thing since I was born and raised in it. After all 1.5 billion people have bought into it. They can’t all be misguided, can they?

This quest led me to examine the teachings and life of Muhammad closely. And here are a few of my findings that have thrown me for a loop. Hence, I am sharing my findings with the readers in the hope that someone would supply me with explanations that would relieve me of my perplexities.

I have, in my quest, read, re-read, and read again the Quran—purportedly the literal word-for-word of Allah transmitted to Muhammad by the Archangel Gabriel over the course of some 20 years.

Right away I am troubled. Is Allah the same Creator who has created the entire universe by a single word of his mouth—kon va yakoon—be and became, as Islam claims? Then why did it take this magnificent all-knowing lightning-fast-Allah 20 years to get across a dime-novel-size hodgepodge of contradictory and nonsensical verse called the Quran, to us poor creatures?

Was it because Muhammad was illiterate and he couldn’t write them down? But that can’t be. He didn’t write down anything himself. He dictated to anyone who could write and was around at the time to do it. Therefore, in the course of some 20 years what is claimed to be the word-for-word dictates of Allah went through a number of intermediaries and materialized in several versions.

First the Archangel Gabriel whispered it to Muhammad, then Muhammad found some Arab who could write—not an easy find among the masses of the most backward illiterates of Arabia—and who happened to have a pen of some sort and a parchment to jot down what Muhammad still managed to recall.

Perhaps this does explain the several versions of the Quran that popped up after Muhammad’s death and the Caliph Othman’s choice of one as the genuine and burning of the others. The practice of burning books Muslims don’t like to talk about, goes all the way back to their venerated second Caliph, Othman.

Now, how could a fallible politician like Othman be the judge of Allah’s genuine utterances? Was there another Archangel that helped him out, or he just simply liked that particular version best? One thing you can say about Othman. He was an astute enough politician to realize that you can’t have one Islam with several versions of the word-for-word revelation of Allah.

Here is another problem. Even the chosen version of the Quran, if you can make any sense of it at all, reads like two different books. The early part is known as the Mecca Quran. This part is much about meekness, tolerance, kindness and so forth. This was the time that Muhammad’s wife Khadija—a monotheist Hanif, in contrast to polytheist idolater Muhammad—introduced her young troubled husband to her Christian uncle and exposed him to the teachings of Christianity that influenced his “revelation.”

During this early phase of his ministry, Muhammad spoke respectfully about the “people of the book,”—Christians and Jews, the people from whose book he liberally plagiarized to launch his monotheistic faith with the invaluable encouragements of his wife Khadija.

It was Khadija who convinced the young man that he was indeed chosen by Allah to be his spokesperson; that the jinn and angels communicated with him were parts of Allah’s plan for him.

Muhammad, during his Mecca years, was ridiculed for his confused sayings by his own tribe of Quraish. He was called shaeron majnoon—crazed poet. At this early stage he went by his birth name of Abulqasem. It was later that he took on the new name of Muhammad—Praiseworthy-One—to go better with his ministry.

Muhammad was judged as a hallucinating insane poet and was tormented by the Meccans in many ways. It got so bad, that after his wife’s death he left for Medina where a significant Jewish community provided a safer place for him to gather followers, build a powerbase, reveal his Medina Quran of intolerance and vilification, and launch his religion in full force and by brute force.

Once in Medina, Muhammad hit on a most powerful formula for success. He justified everything, on the spot, by saying that Allah wants it this way. And Allah was nothing to trifle with. He held the key to the most magnificent paradise as well as to the dreadful hell. The duty of a good Muslim became unquestioning obedience to everything that Muhammad said and wished. Muhammad became Allah’s gatekeeper to paradise and hell.

Muhammad’s formula worked magic with the Bedouins of Arabia who thrived on robbery and murder. His religion spread like a pandemic disease in no time at all. And here we are in the 21st century, at Christmas time, praying for peace and goodwill to men, while Muhammad’s men are working overtime to make sure that men see neither peace nor goodwill.

I would like to join the chorus of peace on earth and goodwill to men. Yet, deep in my soul, I find it my solemn duty to keep on sounding the alarm about the fire of Islam even at this poignant moment of Christmas.

Peace on earth and goodwill to men is a perennial prayer. It can be only when enough men and women of goodwill, with iron resolve arise and disempower the Islamist people of war and ill will.

Sunday, December 25, 2011

Accentuate the positive: Dr Muqtedar Khan's New Year Recipe for World Peace

Dr Muqtedar Khan has written a recent opinion piece, ('Muhammad's promise to Christians', December 30, 2009), calling upon Christians and Muslims to 'tell and retell positive stories' about each other, and 'abstain from mutual demonization'. He follows his own advice by telling a nice story about a letter, which is thought to be sent from Muhammad to the monks of St Catherine's Monastery at Mount Sinai in Egypt.

Pointing out that these Christianity and Islam account for more than half of the world's population between them, Dr Khan writes that 'if they [Christians and Muslims] lived in peace, we would be than half way to world peace.'

Dr Khan also implies that those who would expose Islam or Christianity to criticism are fuelling global conflict. He proposes that, instead of 'demonizing' each other – i.e. telling negative stories, adherents of these two faiths should seek out, and retell the most postive stories that they can find about each other. I am reminded of Bing Crosby's song:

Man, they said we better Accentuate the positive Eliminate the negative… You've got to spread joy (up to the maximum) Bring gloom (down) down to the minimum Otherwise (otherwise) pandemonium Liable to walk upon the scene

Is this viewpoint valid? In one sense this is just good neighborliness. If two parties have a history of conflict, it can be helpful if each side agrees to speak well of the other.

On the other hand, there are times where telling the truth is essential, even if the truth is unwelcome or hard to hear, even when it is not a 'positive story'. Where there has been a history of abuse and injustice, sweet talk can make injustice and suffering worse.

Consider for example the desperate and fragile situation of South Africa emerging from the apartheid years. It became necessary – and wise – to establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, because genuine, lasting harmony needed to be truth-based. The nation was plagued with deep and festering wounds, causing the whole body of South Africa to be sick. These wounds had to to be opened to the light of day, and their causes acknowledged, to allow a reasonable hope for genuine and lasting reconciliation.

The problem with Dr Khan's advice is that when reconciliation is what is needed, sweet talk can be a smokescreen for continued abuse. Dr Khan's advice is at worst a form of emotional blackmail, which attempts to shut down serious critical discourse, for his logic would paint all who attempt a serious critique of the legacy of each faith as inciters of hatred, and 'demonizers'. This is itself a form of demonization, which will stigmatize the victims of interfaith hatred, simply for telling their far from 'positive' stories.

In the light of these considerations, Dr Khan's example of St Catherine's letter is misleading and unfortunate. Dr Khan must surely be aware that scholarly opinion does not regard this document as genuine. It is almost certainly a forgery, created to bolster the security of the Christian monks of the Mount Sinai Monastry. This is why the document no longer exists in its original form: there never was an original letter. In reality the very existence of this document is evidence of the fear under which the monks have lived, as are the impregnable walls of the monastery building itself.

Dr Khan must also be aware that this letter is in conflict at several points with classical Islamic sources, including the Koran.

Dr Khan asserts, on the basis of the Mt Sinai letter, that Christians 'do not have to make any payments' for living in peace with Muslims. However he does not mention that the Koran commands the imposition of a tax (known as jizya) upon conquered non-Muslims (Sura 9:29), and this was incorporated into Islamic law. Also, although the letter states that Christians were to be allowed to repair their churches, the orthodox Islamic position was that churches were not allowed to be repaired after conquest. This was based upon the Pact of Umar, which has been relied upon by many great Muslim commentators and jurists. Undoubtedly this phrase was included in the forged letter to counter the difficulties Egyptian Christians were having living under sharia conditions. The reference to Christian girls not being forced to marry Muslim men against their will does not reflect Muhammad's intentions for 7th century monks at Mt Sinai, but the ever-present fear, which Egyptian Christians experience to this day, that Christian women could be forced into unwanted marriages with Muslim men.

In the end, despite Dr Khan's evident good will and positive story, it is the authority of the Koran and accepted sources such as the Pact of Umar which have shaped Islamic law and affected the destiny of millions of conquered non-Muslims over centuries – and continue to do so today. Not letters held by Christians in monasteries.

Dr Khan writes that:

Those who seek to foster discord among Muslims and Christians focus on issues that divide and emphasize areas of conflict. But when resources such as Muhammad's promise to Christians is invoked and highlighted it builds bridges. It inspires Muslims to rise above communal intolerance and engenders good will in Christians who might be nursing fear of Islam or Muslims.

When I look at Islamic sources, I find in them unprecedented examples of religious tolerance and inclusiveness. They make me want to become a better person.

Genuine reconciliation demands more than this. It requires a frank and open acknowledgement of the past. In order to truly engage with the impact of Islam upon its conquered peoples, Muhammad's advice of 'Speak the truth, even if bitter' is well worth following.

It is a form of abuse to attempt to silence the voices of those who suffer from the worst aspects of Islamic law. To characterize as 'demonization' attempts to speak about these sufferings or examine the reasons behind them, is intolerable. This contributes nothing to interfaith harmony, but only condemns the wounds of the past to fester on, unhealed. Sadly, Dr Khan's counsel is no New Year recipe for peace and harmony in our broken world.